Iterative taxonomy reveals a new species of Cambeva (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) with intraspecific variation from the rio Piquiri and Ivaí basin, upper rio Paraná basin, Brazil

Isadora Carolina Martins^1,2 , Renan Borges dos Reis^1,2, Bruno Henrique Mioto Stabile² and Weferson Júnio da Graça^1,2,3,4

PDF: EN    XML: EN | Supplementary: S1 S2 S3 | Cite this article

Abstract​

---

Introduction​

---

Trichomycteridae belongs to the order Siluriformes and is a family geographically distributed throughout South and Central America (de Pinna, Wosiacki, 2003), comprising small fishes (about 10 cm standard length) known as “candirus”, “cambevas” or “guascas” with species that exhibit different habits, most being found among rocks in streams with stony bottoms or buried in the sand (Baskin, 1973; Wosiacki, de Pinna, 2008; Ferrer, Malabarba, 2011, 2013). This family forms a monophyletic lineage (Baskin, 1973; de Pinna, 1992a, 1998; Schmidt, 1993; Fernández, Schaefer, 2009; Henschel et al., 2017; Ochoa et al., 2017, 2020; Fernández et al., 2021), primarily supported by synapomorphies related to the modified opercular system (Baskin, 1973; de Pinna, 1992a, 2016).

Trichomycteridae has nine subfamilies, of which Trichomycterinae is the most species-rich (Fricke et al., 2023), with its monophyly corroborated by Datovo, Bockmann (2010) using miology, and Ochoa et al. (2017, 2020) and Fernández et al. (2021) with molecular data. Among the valid genera in this subfamily, Cambeva Katz, Barbosa, Mattos & Costa, 2018 is considered a monophyletic genus supported by molecular analyses (Katz et al., 2018; Ochoa et al., 2020). Nevertheless, other authors have studied the phylogenetic relationships of this group and found morphological synapomorphies between Cambeva and Scleronema Eigenmann, 1917 (see Katz et al., 2018; Ochoa et al., 2020).

Some species of Cambeva are identified through body color pattern, as it is considered a conservative characteristic (Bockmann et al., 2004). However, within Trichomycteridae, great variation in color pattern has been found, making identification difficult (Silva et al., 2010; Nascimento et al., 2017; Donin et al., 2022). Studies employing morphometric and osteological data (Ferrer, Malabarba, 2011), as well as those using molecular data into the analyses, proved to be efficient in distinguishing species (Reis et al., 2020a; Costa et al., 2023). These approaches have also highlighted the remarkable variation in color patterns exhibited by Cambeva species (Silva et al., 2010; Nascimento et al., 2017; Donin et al., 2022; Costa et al., 2023).

The upper rio Paraná is one of the main drainages in Brazil, occupying around 880,000 km², representing 10.3% of the Brazilian territory and extending across five Brazilian states (Agostinho et al., 2007). In the state of Paraná, the rio Piquiri and Ivaí basins are among the main tributaries of the left bank of the upper rio Paraná basin (Frota et al., 2016; Cavalli et al., 2018). The proportion of possible new species for the region is approximately 10% (Langeani et al., 2007; Frota et al., 2016; Cavalli et al., 2018; Reis et al., 2020a), this demonstrates how the description of species even in well-sampled regions such as the rio Piquiri and rio Ivaí, is still important for understanding local diversity, especially in headwaters, which are home to small species from the region. In this context, this study aims to describe a new species of Cambeva from the rio Piquiri and Ivaí basins, upper rio Paraná basin, Brazil, using both morphological and molecular data.

Material and methods

---

Morphological data. Morphometric data were taken point to point with a digital caliper (precision 0.1 mm) on the left side of specimens following Tchernavin (1944) for 1) maxillary, 2) nasal and 3) rictal barbels length; Costa (1992) for 4) mouth width and 5) supraorbital pores S6 distance; Donin et al. (2022) for 6) standard length, 7) head length, 8) head width, 9) predorsal length, 10) prepelvic length, 11) pre-anal length, 12) scapular-girdle width, 13) trunk length, 14) pectoral-fin length, 15) pelvic-fin length, 16) caudal-peduncle length, 17) caudal-peduncle depth, 18) body depth, 19) dorsal-fin base length, 20) anal-fin base length, 21) snout length, 22) interorbital distance and 23) eye diameter; and Nascimento et al. (2017) 24) body length, 25) anal-fin length, 26) dorsal-fin length and 27) Pelvic-anal length (hereafter Pelvic-anal fins distance). Number of morphometric measures do not correspond to the order shown in Tabs. 1-2. We conducted a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in PAST v. 4.03 (Hammer et al., 2001) to check the overall morphometric variation among specimens and to determine if distinct groups were identified. The measurements indicated previously were treated with the Allometric Burnaby’s method to remove the allometric size-dependent shape variation from the multivariate data set, and therefore log-transforming the data (Hammer et al., 2001). Additionally, the following morphometric data were excluded for PCA analysis, as they may indicate an influence of size on the shape arrangement between the specimens (see Chuctaya et al., 2018): 1) standard length, 2) trunk length and 3) body length. The final PCA result was visualized using the ggplot2 package (Wickham, 2016) in R v. 4.3.2 (R Development Core Team, 2023). For osteological analysis, nine specimens were cleared and stained (c&s) according to procedures described by Taylor, Van Dyke (1985). Nomenclature of the osteological structures, laterosensory canals and associated pores follows Bockmann et al. (2004), except for the use of barbular, which followed de Pinna et al. (2020), and opercular and interopercular odontodophores, which followed de Pinna, Dagosta (2022). Vertebrae counts followed Ferrer, Malabarba (2013), excluding the Weberian complex and the compound caudal centrum (pu1+u1) was counted as a single element. Counts of odontodes from opercular and interopercular odontodophores were made only in c&s specimens. The counts of unsegmented rays (represented by lowercase Roman numerals) in c&s specimens are given before the number of unbranched and segmented rays. Unbranched rays (represented by uppercase Roman numerals) and branched rays (represented by Arabic numerals) were performed in 40 specimens. Holotype counts are marked with an asterisk and each meristic character is followed by the number of specimens examined in parentheses. Non-type specimens correspond to a cleared and stained individual, poorly ossified and with broken bones, and a poorly preserved specimens. Osteological illustrations were prepared in the digital software Photoshop version 2021 v. 22, based on photographs and direct observation of c&s specimens under a stereomicroscope. To verify possible morphotypes of the new species, we used traditional color pattern diagnosis of Cambeva species, and provided morphological and molecular analysis from possible morphotypes found. Morphological data of the specimens were based on the comparative material listed and the original descriptions and redescriptions of the congener species. We analyzed the photo and x-ray of the holotype of Pygidium paolence Eigenmann, 1917, available from https://collections-zoology.fieldmuseum.org/catalogue/637343. Institutional abbreviations follow Sabaj (2020).

Conservation status. We calculated the extent of occurrence (EOO) and area of occupancy (AOO) using GeoCAT webserver (http://geocat.kew.org/). The conservation status followed the guidelines of the International Union for Conservation of Nature for the red list of threatened species (IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee, 2024).

Molecular data and analyses. DNA extractions from previously ethanol-preserved tissue samples were carried out using the Wizard Genomic DNA Purification kit (Promega), following the manufacturer’s protocol. For the amplification of the partial fragment of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI) gene we used the primers FR1d (Ivanova et al., 2007) and FishF1 (Ward et al., 2005) with the following conditions: initial denaturation at 95 °C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles at 94 °C for 30 s, 52 °C for 40 s, and 72 ºC for 1 min, with a final extension at 72 °C for 10 min (adapted from Ivanova et al., 2007). All samples were then quantified using NanoDrop™ Lite Spectrophotometer, purified with polyethylene glycol 8000 (Rosenthal et al., 1993), and sequenced at ACTGene Análises Moleculares LTDA, using an ABI 3500 Applied Biosystems automated sequencer.

Sequences were edited and aligned using BioEdit (Hall, 1999) and ClustalW (Thompson et al., 1994) algorithm in MEGA7 (Kumar et al., 2016), which was also used to calculate genetic distances using the Kimura-2-Parameter (K2P) model. A maximum likelihood (ML) tree and its substitution model were calculated using PhyML(Guindon et al., 2010), with branch support tested using 1,000 replicates.

The Bayesian tree with all specimens (Fig. S1) was created with a relaxed clock with speciation birth-death model, on an arbitrary timescale, using BEAST v. 1.8.4 (Drummond et al., 2012). The best-fitting model of molecular substitution was found using the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) implemented in the web server of IQ-TREE (http://iqtree.cibiv.univie.ac.at/, see Trifinopoulos et al., 2016). A random tree was used as a starting tree for MCMC searches with two independent runs of 40,000,000 generations, and trees were sampled at every 4,000th generation. Chain convergence was analyzed by Tracer 1.6 to determine the stationary phase and an effective sample size > 200 (Rambaut et al., 2018). Ten percent of the chain was discarded as a burn-in procedure in Tree Annotator v. 1.8.4 to find the Maximum Clade Credibility Tree (MCC) (Drummond et al., 2012). The final tree was edited using Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) (Letunic, Bork, 2021).

FIGURE 1| Cambeva perobana, holotype: NUP 23907, 75.9 mm SL, Brazil, Paraná State, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Goioerê, rio Piquiri basin, upper rio Paraná.

Trichomycterus nigricans Valenciennes, 1832 (MN385796) was used as an outgroup and all the sequences obtained in this study were deposited in GenBank (OQ756220, OQ756221 and PP281332). Access to the genetic heritage of the species was authorized by the National System for Management of Genetic Heritage and Associated Traditional Knowledge (SisGen) under the registration number AB3B0CA. All molecular data used and taxonomic identifications provided by the authors are listed in Tab. S2.

Species delimitation methods. In order to achieve optimal performance in the delimitation analyses and to obtain more accurate results from the delimitation methods, we used only closer sister groups of the new species in these analyses. Cambeva horacioi Reis, Frota, Fabrin & Graça 2019 was used as an outgroup. For this study, four different species delimitation methods were used to validate the results: Assemble Species by Automatic Partitioning (ASAP; Puillandre et al., 2021), the Poisson tree process (PTP) and its Bayesian implementation (bPTP; Zhang et al., 2013), and the General Mixed Yule Coalescent approach (GMYC; Fujisawa, Barraclough, 2013). For the first method, the analysis was performed in the web server (https://bioinfo.mnhn.fr/abi/public/asap/), using the alignment file. The PTP method used a new ML tree from PhyML as input in the web server (https://species.h-its.org/), and its Bayesian implementation utilized 500,000 MCMC generations with 0.2 burn-in, along with all other default parameters. For the latter method, GMYC, a new Bayesian inference of the gene tree, using only sister groups of the new species, and with unique haplotypes was estimated. We used the same settings as the bayesian tree created for all specimens, except for the Markov chain generations, being performed searches with two independent runs of 50,000,000 generations, and trees were sampled at every 5,000th generation. The Maximum Clade Credibility Tree (MCC) was checked in FigTree v. 1.4.4 (Rambaut, 2018) and used as an input file (Newick format) for the GMYC analyses performed in the web server (https://species.h-its.org/gmyc/), using a single threshold method. The final tree was edited using Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) (Letunic, Bork, 2021).

Results​

---

Cambeva perobana,new species

urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:C0BF9D84-4F67-4B57-8BCA-267A8F608AC9

(Figs. 1–8; Tab. 1)

Trichomycterus sp. 1 —Delariva, Silva, 2013:552 (Checklist of fishes from Perobas Biological Reserve).

Trichomycterus sp. 2 —Delariva, Silva, 2013:552 (Checklist of fishes from Perobas Biological Reserve).

Trichomycterus sp. 3 —Delariva, Silva, 2013:552 (Checklist of fishes from Perobas Biological Reserve; partim: NUP 11703).

Trichomycterus sp. —Delariva, Silva, 2014:61 (Checklist of fishes from Perobas Biological Reserve; fig. in p. 61).

Holotype. NUP 23907, 75.9 mm SL, Brazil, Paraná State, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Goioerê, rio Piquiri basin, upper rio Paraná basin, 23°52’54”S 52°49’46”W, 15 Jul 2011, A. G. Bifi & G. C. Deprá.

Paratypes. All from Brazil, Paraná State, upper rio Paraná basin. Rio Ivaí basin: NUP 11020, 2, 56.1–70.0 mm SL, municipality of Araruna, rio Ligeiro, tributary of rio Ivaí, 23°50’52”S 52°33’47”W, 25 Oct 2010, C. H. Zawadzki, L. Raisi & G. C. Zawadzki. NUP 11726, 2, 57.8–71.9 mm SL, municipality of Cianorte, rio dos Índios, 23°51’11”S 52°42’03”W, 6 Dec 2010, R. Delariva. NUP 24163, 1, 56.3 mm SL, municipality of Cianorte, rio dos Índios, tributary of rio Ivaí, 23°51’11”S 52°42’03”W, 6 Dec 2010, R. Delariva. NUP 24274, 1 c&s, 50.0 mm SL, municipality of Cianorte, rio dos Índios, 23°51’11”S 52°42’03”W, 6 Dec 2010, R. Delariva. Rio Piquiri basin: MCP 54936, 3, 67.6–79.5 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Goioerê, 23°53’10”S 52°49’19”W, 1 May 2017, R. Delariva & C. Larentis.NUP 11703, 5, 38.4–67.5 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Concórdia, tributary of rio Mouro, 23°52’51”S 52°49’56”W, 4 Dec 2010, R. Delariva. NUP 11707, 2, 23.3–58.8 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Concórdia, tributary of rio Piquiri, 23°52’51”S 52°49’56”W, 4 Dec 2010, R. Delariva. NUP 11712, 4, 27.3–68.8 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiros do Oeste, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Piquiri, 23°52’07”S 52°48’56”W, 6 Dec 2010, R. Delariva. NUP 14648, 5, 22.0–63.8 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Saquarema, tributary of rio Piquiri, 23°52’02”S 52°46’30”W, 28 Aug 2011, R. Delariva. NUP 16051, 2, 31.0–58.3 mm SL, municipality of Janiópolis, NN stream, tributary of rio Barreiro, 24°12’44”S 52°47’50”W, 25 Mar 2014, W. J. da Graça, W. M. Domingues, F. A. Teixeira & R. J. da Graça. NUP 16086, 1, 52.5 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Água Cinquenta e Cinco, tributary of rio Goioerê, 23°56’02”S 52°45’52”W, 29 Jan 2014, W. J. da Graça, W. M. Domingues, F. A. Teixeira & R. J. da Graça. NUP 17219, 2, 34.5–68.6 mm SL, municipality of Farol, NN stream, tributary of rio Farol, 24°22’45”S 52°40’53”W, 12 Sep 2014, C. H. Zawadzki. NUP 17223, 1, 35.0 mm SL, municipality of Farol, rio Farol, tributary of rio Goioerê, 24°22’45”S 52°40’ 54”W, 12 Sep 2014, C. H. Zawadzki. NUP 17228, 1, 45.7 mm SL, municipality of Farol, NN stream, tributary of córrego Água da Granada, 24°22’53”S 52°35’58”W, 12 Sep 2014, C. H. Zawadzki. NUP 17232, 3, 27.6–43.1 mm SL, municipality of Farol, Córrego Água da Granada, tributary of rio Goioerê, 24°16’55”S 52°41’31”W, 13 Sep 2014, C. H. Zawadzki. NUP 23908, 2, 29.0–68.3 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, NN stream, tributary of rio Mouro, 23°52’54”S 52°49’46”W, 23 Mar 2022, A. G. Bifi & G. C. Deprá. NUP 24159, 2, 60.9–67.5 mm SL, same data as holotype. NUP 24160, 1, 41.2 mm SL, municipality of Farol, NN stream, tributary of córrego Água da Granada, 24°22’53”S 52°35’58”W,12 Sep 2014, C. H. Zawadzki. NUP 24161, 1, 49.9 mm SL, municipality of Farol, NN stream, tributary of rio Farol, 24°22’45”S 52°40’53”W, 12 Sep 2014, C. H. Zawadzki. NUP 24162, 1, 74.7 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Água Cinquenta e Cinco, tributary of rio Goioerê, 23°56’02”S 52°45’52”W, 29 Jan 2014, W. J. da Graça, W. M. Domingues, F. A. Teixeira & R. J. da Graça. NUP 24164, 2 c&s, 45.7–50.0 mm SL, municipality of Janiópolis, NN stream, tributary of rio Barreiro, 24°12’44”S 52°47’50”W, 25 Mar 2014, W. J. da Graça, W. M. Domingues, F. A. Teixeira & R. J. da Graça. NUP 24165, 1, 68.8 mm SL, rio Concórdia, tributary of rio Mouro, 23°52’54”S 52°49’46”W, 15 Jul 2011, A. G. Bifi & G. C. Deprá. NUP 24166, 2, 46.0–63.2 mm SL, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Goioerê, 23°52’54”S 52°49’46”W, 9 Sep 2022, I. C. Martins, Renan B. Reis, B. H. M. Stabile & M. Z. Roloff. NUP 24167, 6, 25.9–54.6 mm SL, rio Concórdia, tributary of rio Mouro, 23°53’0.31”S 52°49’52.00”W, 9 Sep 2022, I. C. Martins, R. B. Reis, B. H. M. Stabile & M. Z. Roloff. NUP 24271, 1 c&s, 48.1 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Água Cinquenta e Cinco, tributary of rio Goioerê, 23°56’02”S 52°45’52”W, 29 Jan 2014, W. J. da Graça, W. M. Domingues, F. A. Teixeira & R. J. da Graça. NUP 24272, 1 c&s, 50.5 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Água Cinquenta e Cinco, tributary of rio Goioerê, 23°56’02”S 52°45’52”W, 29 Jan 2014, W. J. da Graça, W. M. Domingues, F. A. Teixeira & R. J. da Graça. NUP 25070, 7, 25.7–57.8 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiras do Oeste, rio Concórdia, tributary of rio Mouro, 23°53’03”S 52°49’52”W, 9 Sep 2022, I. C. Martins, R. B. Reis, B. H. M. Stabile & M. Z. Roloff. NUP 25181, 3 c&s, 52.4–75.1 mm SL, municipality of Tuneiros do Oeste, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Piquiri, 23°52’07”S 52°48’56”W, 6 Dec 2010, R. Delariva.

Non-types. CIG 869, 2, 51.0–67.0 mm SL, municipality of Campo Mourão, rio Mourão, 24°11’18”S 52°22’43”W, 1 Jul 2010, V. A. Frana. NUP 24273, 1 c&s, 54.9 mm SL, municipality of Cianorte, rio dos Índios, 23°51’11”S 52°42’03”W, 6 Dec 2010, R. Delariva.

Diagnosis. Cambeva perobana can be distinguished from most congeners by having six branched pectoral-fin rays (vs. four in C. alphabelardense Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2022; C. betabelardense Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2022, C. pascuali (Ochoa, Silva, Costa e Silva, Oliveira & Datovo, 2017); five in C. brachykechenos (Ferrer & Malabarba, 2013), C. flavopicta Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2020, C. grisea Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. mboycy (Wosiacki & Garavello, 2004), C. naipi (Wosiacki & Garavello, 2004), C. podostemophila Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2023, C. poikilos (Ferrer & Malabarba, 2013), C. taroba (Wosiacki & Garavello, 2004) and C. tourensis Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2023; or seven in C. barbosae Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. castroi (de Pinna, 1992), C. concolor (Costa, 1992), C. crassicaudata (Wosiacki & de Pinna, 2008), C. diabola (Bockmann, Casatti & de Pinna, 2004), C. difficilis Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2024, C. guaraquessaba (Wosiacki, 2005), C. igobi (Wosiacki & de Pinna, 2008), C. iheringi (Eigenmann, 1917), C. melanoptera Costa, Abilhoa, Dalcin & Katz, 2022, C. tupinamba (Wosiacki & Oyakawa, 2005), C. variegata (Costa, 1992),and C. ytororo (Terán, Ferrer, Benitez, Alonso, Aguilera & Mirande, 2017)). Cambeva perobana can be distinguished from C. chrysornata Costa, Feltrin, Mattos, Dalcin, Abilhoa & Katz, 2023, C. davisi (Haseman, 1911), C. orbitofrontalis Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, and C. stawiarski (Miranda Ribeiro, 1968)by the lower number of interopercular odontodes (28–29 vs. 30–38), or from C. balios (Ferrer & Malabarba, 2013), C. biseriata Costa, Feltrin, Mattos, Dalcin, Abilhoa & Katz, 2023, C. diatropoporos (Ferrer & Malabarba, 2013), C. diffusa Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. duplimaculata Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. horacioi, C. imaruhy Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. longipalata Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. notabilis Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. panthera Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. pericoh Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. perkos (Datovo, Carvalho & Ferrer, 2012), C. plumbea (Wosiacki & Garavello, 2004), C. tropeiro (Ferrer & Malabarba, 2011), C. urubici Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, and C. ventropapillata Costa, Feltrin, Mattos, Dalcin, Abilhoa & Katz, 2023 by the greater number of interopercular odontodess (28–29 vs. 11–26); from C. balios, C. botuvera Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2021, C. chrysornata, C. diffusa, C. duplimaculata, C. gamabelardense Costa, Feltrin & Katz, 2022, C. guaratuba Costa, Feltrin, Mattos, Dalcin, Abilhoa & Katz, 2023, C. horacioi, C. imaruhy, C. longipalata, C. notabilis, C. orbitofrontalis, C. paolence (Eigenmann, 1917), C. pericoh, C. perkos, C. piraquara Reis, Wosiacki, Ferrer, Donin & Graça, 2023, C. stawiarski, and C. urubici differs by the number of vertebrae (34–37 vs. more than 37); from C. biseriata, C. botuvera, C. chrysornata, C. davisi, C. imaruhy, C. notabilis, C. papillifera (Wosiacki & Garavello, 2004), C. plumbea, C. stawiarski, and C. urubici differsby the lower number of opercular odontodes (13 vs. 14–28), or from C. cubataonis (Bizerril, 1994), C. longipalata, and C. panthera differs by the lower number of opercular odontodes (13 vs. 7–11); from C. cubataonis, C. diffusa, C. guaratuba, C. guareiensis, C. imaruhy, C. longipalata, C. notabilis, C. orbitofrontalis, C. panthera, C. pericoh, and C. zonata (Eigenmann, 1918) differs by the number of branchiostegal rays (9 vs. 7–8); from C. papillifera,and C. ventropapillata differs by the absent of conspicuous papillae on ventral region of head (vs. present);and from C. tropeiro is distinguished by the presence of pelvic girdle and fin (vs. absent).

Additionally, C. perobana can be distinguished from all congeners from the upper rio Paraná and rio Iguaçu basin by the presence of pelvic girdle (vs. absence of pelvic girdle in C. pascuali); by the long rictal barbel, 40.0–73.0% of HL (vs. short, 12.0–30.0% in C. papillifera, 33.0–40.0% in C. castroi); by the pelvic fins not reaching the urogenital opening (vs. reaching to anal-fin origin in C. crassicaudata and C. paolence, reaching urogenital opening in C. cauim Reis, Ferrer & Graça, 2021, C. davisi, C. guareiensis Katz & Costa, 2020, and C. taroba); by the caudal fin truncate to rounded (vs. caudal fin forked in C. crassicaudata; distal margin strongly concave in C. cauim, or slightly concave in C. stawiarski); by the first pectoral-fin ray not prolonged as a filament (vs. prolonged as a rudimentary filament in C. pascuali, and C. piraquara; short filament in C. paolence, and some specimens of C. piraquara; and long filament in C. taroba); by the color pattern of the caudal fin, presenting blotches, spots, or a homogeneous dark-brown or gray pattern in the proximal region (vs. presenting a pale-yellow to unpigmented stripe in the proximal region in C. castroi, C. diabola, C. difficilis, and C. melanoptera); by the presence of a narrow mid-lateral stripe in some specimens (vs. presence of four narrow stripes on the body: mid-sagital, mid-dorsal, mid-lateral, and ventro-lateral stripes in C. naipi); by the shorter head, 17.2–20.6% of SL (vs. longer, 23.8–26.8% of SL in C. igobi); by the longer pelvic and pectoral fins, 10.3–16.0% of SL and 7.5–9.8%, respectively (vs. 7.7–9.1%, and 5.6–7.3%, respectively, in C. mboycy); by the color pattern of some specimens, consisting in a dark-gray to dark-brown, becoming lighter towards ventral portion of the body and head, and absence of chromatophores, or some specimens with irregular dark-brown blotches on the inner skin layer, larger than two or three times the diameter of the orbit, sometimes coalescing and forming larger blotches, and an interrupted stripe in the mid-lateral region of the flank, over a plain yellowish to brown background (vs. color pattern consisting in dorsal and lateral surface of body with scattered circular well-defined dark-brown blotches, variable in size in inner skin layer and small black spots on the outer skin layer in C. horacioi; or lateral and dorsal surface of body with numerous small spots, irregularly distributed, and well-defined dark-brown blotches, larger than orbit diameter, along dorsal and mid-lateral surface of body in C. iheringi); and by the number of branchiostegal rays (9 vs. 7–8 in C. iheringi).

Description. Summarized morphometric data of two morphotypes in Tab 1. Body elongate, trunk roughly cylindrical close to head and gradually becoming laterally compressed towards caudal fin. Dorsal profile of trunk slightly convex along anterior half of body to insertion of dorsal fin. Ventral profile of trunk slightly convex. Dorsal and ventral profiles of caudal peduncle slightly convex.

TABLE 1 | Morphometric data for Cambeva perobana. Values of range (minimum-maximum), mean, and standard deviation (SD). Morphotype I (n = 25), Morphotype II (n = 15).

	Morphotype I				Morphotype II
	Holotype	Min-Max	Mean	SD	Min-Max	Mean	SD
Standard length (mm)	75.9	27.60–79.50	58.30	–	29.09–74.78	51.42	–
Percent of standard length
Trunk	41.3	36.5–45.3	41.7	2.04	39.9–41.9	41.2	0.82
Preanal length	71.7	69.7–78.0	73.6	2.11	70.2–72.6	71.1	1.32
Prepelvic length	57.4	54.9–61.4	57.8	1.83	55.7–59.0	57.0	1.23
Pelvic-anal fins distance	14.7	7.7–17.3	14.3	2.09	13.1–15.5	14.4	1.62
Caudal-peduncle length	17.2	15.3–22.4	18.7	1.73	19.7–22.0	21.0	1.40
Scapular-girdle width	13.6	12.9–18.5	15.5	1.34	14.7–16.8	15.7	0.74
Pectoral-fin length	13.3	10.3–16.0	12.7	1.31	11.4–15.6	13.6	1.48
Pelvic-fin length	7.8	7.5–9.7	8.6	0.66	7.8–9.8	8.8	0.69
Anal-fin length	15.4	13.3–16.4	15.1	0.82	14.5–16.3	15.4	1.09
Head length	18.0	17.2–20.6	18.9	0.82	17.2–20.5	18.8	1.38
Predorsal length	66.1	63.3–69.8	66.5	1.82	63.4–66.9	65.0	1.74
Body length	80.9	79.6–86.1	83.2	1.92	84.1–86.0	84.9	1.99
Dorsal-fin length	16.4	13.1–18.5	16.6	1.21	16.1–18.4	17.2	1.43
Body depth	15.7	13.2–18.5	15.4	1.38	13.4–16.4	15.2	1.27
Dorsal-fin base length	11.0	8.2–12.5	10.6	1.09	9.9–12.1	10.9	0.84
Anal-fin base length	9.1	6.8–12.9	9.0	1.24	7.4–10.2	8.6	0.87
Caudal-peduncle depth	13.7	11.0–16.2	13.4	1.10	11.3–15.0	13.2	1.01
Percent of head length
Head width	74.2	73.8–89.3	81.7	4.69	76.4–88.0	81.1	5.43
Nasal-barbel length	44.8	36.9–74.3	50.8	9.93	50.4–64.0	56.0	4.87
Maxillary-barbel length	53.5	46.7–78.5	57.1	7.57	47.1–63.2	53.6	4.87
Rictal-barbel length	40.6	40.6–73.0	56.8	8.56	44.2–56.8	50.8	5.32
Snout length	44.0	34.9–52.4	42.3	3.54	40.3–44.7	42.4	2.20
Interorbital	20.1	20.1–29.9	25.1	2.53	21.5–25.3	23.6	1.76
Mouth width	41.7	34.9–53.0	45.4	4.49	34.4–52.9	45.8	4.90
Eye diameter	6.3	6.3–14.2	8.6	1.80	7.7–11.8	9.5	1.39
Supraorbital pores s6 distance	12.5	6.6–19.3	12.0	3.04	11.6–15.5	13.4	1.91

Head depressed, trapezoidal in dorsal view, wider posteriorly and anterior portion slightly rounded. Dorsal and ventral profiles of head straight to slightly convex in lateral view. Eyes located dorsolaterally on anterior region of head, at same longitudinal line of nasal barbel. Eyes with a round to elliptical shape anteroposteriorly, covered by thin and translucent skin. Orbital rim not free. Eyes visible from lateral view.

Anterior nostril slightly smaller than diameter of eye, surrounded by flap of integument posterolaterally continuous with base of nasal barbel. Posterior nostril slightly smaller than diameter of eye, surrounded anterolaterally by thin flap of integument. Gill openings not constricted, forming free fold reaching pectoral-fin insertion. Mouth subterminal and slightly curved with corners posteriorly oriented in ventral view. Upper lip thicker laterally. Lower lip with conspicuous fleshy lobes at corners of mouth, continuous with base of rictal barbels. Lips with small rounded papillae of approximately same size.

Barbels with broad bases, tapering gradually towards tips. Nasal barbel emerging from posterolateral region of anterior nostril with tip surpassing infraorbital pores i10 when adpressed to head. Maxillary barbel emerging from corner of mouth with tip reaching to anterior region of interopercular odontodophore when adpressed to head. Rictal barbel emerging from corner of mouth, shorter than maxillary barbel.

Pectoral fin with distal margin rounded, I,6*(40), first ray unbranched, not prolonged as filament. Pelvic fin with distal margin rounded, not covering anterior margin of urogenital papilla; with I,4* rays (40). Pelvic-fin insertion anterior to dorsal-fin origin. Inner margins of pelvic fins close basally. Urogenital papilla closer to distal margin of pelvic fin than to origin of anal fin. Dorsal fin with distal margin rounded, ii(5), II,7* rays (40). Origin of dorsal fin located at vertical through last third of pelvic fin. Anal fin elongated with distal margin rounded and slightly smaller than dorsal fin, ii(5), II,5*(29) or II,6(11) rays. Origin of anal fin located at vertical through half or last third of dorsal-fin base. Caudal fin with distal margin rounded or truncate in specimens smaller than 35.0 mm SL; upper caudal plate with I,5* rays (40), lower caudal plate with I,6* rays (40).

Osteology. Mesethmoid with anterior margin straight to slightly concave and cornua short, with tapering distal ends. Anterior cranial fontanel restricted to small, rounded opening situated between frontals and epiphyseal bar. Posterior cranial fontanel long and wide extending from posterior portion of frontals to parieto-supraoccipital. Epiphyseal bar longer than wide. Antorbital anteriorly expanded and posteriorly elongated, extending over anterior third of autopalatine. Barbular bone elongate, with medial process in anterior third. Sphenotic, prootic, and pterosphenoid fused, anterior portion anterolaterally directed in dorsal view (Fig. 2). Vomer arrow-shaped with long posterior process extending to parasphenoid. Parasphenoid with long and pointed posterior process extending to basioccipital. Weberian capsule with lateral openings and anterior margin fused to the basioccipital.

FIGURE 2| Dorsal view of neurocranium of Cambeva perobana paratypes. A. NUP 24271, 48.1 mm SL. B. NUP 24272, 50.5 mm SL. Abbreviations: af, anterior fontanel; an, antorbital; ap, autopalatine; ba, barbular bone; ep, epioccipital; fr, frontal; le, lateral ethmoid; i10 and i11, infraorbital sensory pores of the laterosensory system; me, mesethmoid; mx, maxilla; pf, posterior fontanel; pm, premaxilla; po1 and po2, postotic sensory pores 1 and 2; ps, posttemporo-supracleithrum; pt, pterotic; s1 s3, and s6, supraorbital sensory pores of the laterosensory system; sp + po + pn, sphenotic–prootic–pterosphenoid complex bone; su, parieto-supraoccipital; wc, Weberian capsule.

Premaxilla rectangular with 38 or 40 (2) spatulate to conical teeth similar in size and roughly distributed in four irregular rows. Dentary teeth extending from coronoid process base to near dentary symphysis (Figs. 3A–B). Maxilla boomerang-shaped, shorter than premaxilla. Autopalatine with lateral margin concave; anterior margin slightly convex; medial margin slightly concave and long posterior process extending over posterior portion of metapterygoid. Metapterygoid large and laminar, connected to quadrate through cartilage; posterior portion with notch (arrow in Figs. 3C–D). Quadrate L-shaped with concavity in anterior portion. Hyomandibula well developed, dorsal margin with concavity (Figs. 3C–D). Opercle longer than interopercle. Opercular odotodophores ovoid to rounded with 13 (2) conical odontodes, gradually curving medially and increasing in size posteriorly, arranged in five irregular transverse rows. Interopercular patch of odontodes elongate with 28 or 29 (2) conical odontodes, arranged in two transverse rows.

FIGURE 3| A–B. Lateral view of left suspensory of Cambeva perobana. C–D. Medial view of lower jaw. A–C. Morphotype I, paratype, NUP 24271, 48.1 mm SL. B–C. Morphotype II, paratype, NUP 24272, 50.5 mm SL. Abbreviations: ar, anguloarticular; cp, coronoid process; de, dentary; hy, hyomandibula; iop, interopercle; mc, Meckel’s cartilage; mtg, metapterygoid; op, opercle; pop, preopercle; qu, quadrate. Arrow indicates a notch in the posterior portion of the metapterygoid.

Ventral hypohyal trapezoid-shaped. Anterior ceratohyal elongate and wider at anterior and posterior ends. Posterior ceratohyal short, triangular, with rounded tips. Nine branchiostegal rays (2): six in contact with anterior ceratohyal, one with interceratohyal cartilage, and two with posterior ceratohyal. Four posteriormost branchiostegal rays wider distally (Figs. 4A–B). Urohyal with expanded anterior head, two elongate lateral processes with wide bases and decreasing in width distally with rounded tips, and sharp and elongated posterior process. Posterior process of urohyal shorter than lateral processes.

FIGURE 4| A–B. Ventral view of left hyoid arch of Cambeva perobana. C–D. Dorsal view of gill arches. A–C. Morphotype I, paratype, NUP 24271, 48.1 mm SL. B–D. Morphotype II, paratype,NUP 24272, 50.5 mm SL. Abbreviations: ac, anterior ceratohyal; bb2–4, basibranchials 2 to 4; br1–9, branchiostegal rays 1 to 9; cb1–5, ceratobranchials 1 to 5; eb1–5, epibranchials 1 to 5; hb1–3, hypobranchials 1 to 3; pb3, pharyngobranchial 3; pc, posterior ceratohyal; tp, tooth plate; vh, ventral hypohyal.

Basibranchials 2 and 3 elongated, connected by cartilage; basibranchial 2 slightly wider than basibranchial 3. Basibranchial 4 hexagonal and entirely cartilaginous. Hypobranchial 1 elongated, with cartilaginous tips, approximately of same size than basibranchial 2. Hypobranchials 2 and 3 with narrow anterolateral ossified processes with large area of cartilage posteriorly; hypobranchials 2 and 3 equal in size. Five elongate ceratobranchials with cartilaginous tips. Ceratobranchial 3 with prominent concavity on posterior margin. Ceratobranchial 5 with 16 or 20 (2) conical, elongated, and pointed teeth, arranged in three irregular rows. Four epibranchials; anteriormost three elongated and narrow. Epibranchials 1 L shaped, with anterior pointed process; epibranchial 2 with mesial-anterior and distal-posterior process; epibranchial 3 with wider process on distal-posterior margin, slightly curved mesially. Epibranchial 4 rectangular. Pharyngobranchial 3 straight and elongated, shorter than hypobranchial 1. Pharyngobranchial 4 ossified and connected to curved plate with 23 or 28 (2) conical, elongated, and pointed teeth, arranged in up to three irregular rows; teeth increasing in size posteriorly (Figs. 4C–D).

Dorsal fin with eight pterygiophores (4) or seven (2), first inserted anterior to neural spine of 18^th or 19^th post-weberian vertebrae. Anal fin with six pterygiophores (6), first inserted anterior to hemal spine of 22^nd post-weberian vertebrae. Procurrent caudal-fin rays 17(1), 18(1), or 19(4) dorsally and 12(1), 13(2), or 14(22) ventrally. Upper caudal plate with one unbranched ray and five branched rays; hypural 3 free and hypurals 4 and 5 fused to each other. Single lower caudal plate with one unbranched ray and six branched rays. Parhypural and hypurals 1 and 2 co-ossified and fused to compound caudal centrum. Post weberian vertebrae 34(1), 35(1), 36(3), 37(3), ribs 13(4), or 15(1).

Laterosensory system. Laterosensory canals with simple (non-dendritic) branches ending in single pores. Nasal and frontal branches of supraorbital canal continuous, with three paired pores s1, s3, and s6. Supraorbital pore s1 located at posterior portion of anterior nostrils, pore s3 at same longitudinal line of pore s1, posteriorly to posterior nostrils, and pore s6 aligned with posterior margin of eyes. Antorbital segment of infraorbital canal absent. Sphenotic canal present with two pores, i10 located behind eyes, and i11 located laterally to posterior margin of eye. Otic and postotic canals present with two pores associated: po1 located anterolaterally to opercular odontodophore and po2 located laterally to half-length of opercular odontodophore. Lateral line canal short with two* (36) pores located above pectoral-fin insertion and posterior to gill opening.

Coloration in alcohol. We differentiated two morphotypes for Cambeva perobana.

Morphotype I. Background of body and head consisting in a dark-gray to dark-brown coloration, becoming lighter towards ventral portion of body and head. Chromatophores slightly concentrated on dorsum, humeral, occipital, and opercular and interopercular regions. Some specimens with inconspicuous narrow dark-brown mid-lateral stripe, sometimes interrupted, extending from opercular odontodophores to base of caudal-fin rays (Figs. 1, 5A–C). Pectoral, anal, dorsal, and caudal fins with dark brown pigmentation, concentrated in proximal region in specimens larger than 40.0 mm SL. Pelvic fin unpigmented. Specimens smaller than 40.0 mm SL without pigmentation in all fins. Barbels with dark-brown pigmentation concentrated on dorsal surface.

FIGURE 5| Lateral view of morphotypes variation of Cambeva perobana, paratypes. Morphotype I: A. NUP 16086, 72.9 mm SL; B. NUP 17232, 27.4 mm SL; C. NUP 24167, 32.3 mm SL; specimen fixed in absolute alcohol 99.8% for molecular analysis. Morphotype II: D. NUP 24162, 73.7 mm SL; E. NUP 23908, 28.9 mm SL. Arrow indicates inconspicuous narrow dark-brown mid-lateral stripe. Scales bars = 10 mm.

Morphotype II. Background of body and head consisting in a yellowish to dark-brown coloration, becoming lighter towards ventral portion of body and head. Lateral and dorsal surface of body and head with irregular dark-brown blotches larger than two or three times orbit diameter, on inner skin layer, sometimes coalescing and forming larger irregular blotches. Some specimens with inconspicuous narrow dark-brown mid-lateral stripe, sometimes interrupted, extending from opercular odontodophore to base of caudal-fin rays (Figs. 5D, E). Pectoral, anal, dorsal, and caudal fins with dark brown spots in specimens larger than 40.0 mm SL. Pelvic fin unpigmented. Barbels with dark-brown pigmentation concentrated on dorsal surface.

Coloration in life. Similar to coloration in alcohol. In morphotype I, dark-gray to brown pigmentation more intense on flank and base of dorsal, anal, and pectoral fins (Fig. 6).

FIGURE 6| Paratype of Cambeva perobana immediately after capture, NUP 24166, 63.2 mm SL, Paraná State, Brazil, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Goioerê, rio Piquiri basin. Scales bar = 10 mm. Arrow indicates an inconspicuous narrow dark-brown mid-lateral stripe.

Molecular data. A total of 82 COI gene sequences (573 bp) were used in this study, including three of the newly described species (632 bp), corresponding to two sequences from morphotype I (NUP 24166, NUP 24167), and one sequence from morphotype II (NUP 25070). The final alignment revealed 142 polymorphic sites, of which 109 were informative. Genetic distances (K2P) between groups showed that Cambeva perobana had a distance of 1.2–1.4% from C. davisi and 1.6–1.8% from C. stawiarski. Full genetic distance results are listed in Tab. S3.

The best substitution models according to BIC were GTR+R for the ML tree and the TN+F+I+G4 for the Bayesian tree, both showed that Cambeva perobana formed a monophyletic group with C. davisi (from rio Iguaçu basin), sequences identified as C. barbosae (from rio Cubatão do Sul basin), and C. diabola (from rio Paranapanema basin) as sister groups. The last two species formed a cluster with variably internested sequences. Three out of the four delimitation methods tested supported the assignment of C. perobana as a distinct species. Only GMYC lumped it together with C. davisi, C. barbosae, and C. diabola (Fig. 7).

FIGURE 7| A. Bayesian COI gene tree of Cambeva. B. Bayesian COI gene tree with species delimitation results. Vertical bars represent species delimitation from Assemble Species by Automatic Partition (ASAP), Generalized Mixed Yule Coalescent (GMYC), Bayesian implementation of Poisson Tree Process (bPTP) and its standard implementation (PTP). Circles represent posterior probability ≥ 0.95. Cambeva perobana is shown in red.

Geographical distribution. Cambeva perobana is known from the upper section of Paraná System, Paraná State, Brazil, in the rio Piquiri basin: rio Mouro (type-locality), rio Água Cinquenta e Cinco, rio Concórdia, rio Barreiro, rio Farol, rio Saquarema, Córrego Água da Granada, and stream tributaries of rio Goioerê, and in the rio Ivaí basin: rio dos Índios and rio Ligeiro (Fig. 8).

FIGURE 8| Partial map of South America, highlighting Brazil and the state of Paraná, showing the geographic distribution of Cambeva perobana in the rio Piquiri and Ivaí basins. The yellow circles represent localities of paratypes, the gray circle represent locality of non-type material and the red star represents the type-locality.

Ecological notes. The type-locality of Cambeva perobana is located at an elevation of 450 m, and the other localities are at 410 to 645 m above sea level. Substrate was composed of pebbles and rocks of 1 to 4 cm, and sand. The marginal vegetation was composed of predominant bushes and grassy banks (Fig. 9), where the specimens were found. The streams are surrounded by riparian vegetation, but only part of the rivers are inside the Perobas Biological Reserve. The new species was found in sympatry at the type-locality with Ancistrus sp., Cetopsorhamdia iheringi Schubart & Gomes, 1959, Characidium gomesi Travassos, 1956, Cichlasoma paranaense Kullander, 1983, Corydoras aeneus (Gill, 1858), Gymnotus inaequilabiatus (Valenciennes, 1839), Heptapterus sp., Hisonotus pachysarkos Zawadzki, Roxo & da Graça, 2016, Hypostomus ancistroides (Ihering, 1911), Neoplecostomus sp., and Rhamdia aff. quelen (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824).

FIGURE 9| A–B. Type-locality of Cambeva perobana, rio Mouro, tributary of rio Concórdia, rio Piquiri basin, upper rio Paraná basin, Paraná State, Brazil. C–D. Microhabitat of C. perobana.

Etymology. The specific epithet “perobana” is in allusion to the “Reserva Biológica das Perobas”, a conservation unit in the Paraná State, Brazil, and the area of the type-locality of the new species. The feminine Latin suffix “-ana”, which mens pertaining to, is added to the singular noun “Peroba”. An adjective.

Conservation status. Cambeva perobana is found in streams of the Reserva Biológica das Perobas, which is a Federal Conservation Unit and the major reminiscent forest in northwest Paraná, Brazil (Delariva, Silva, 2013), although there are pastures and crops, which can result in contamination of its water bodies by agricultural pollutants. Furthermore, some streams located in the vicinity of the reserve show apparent degradation, due to pollution from solid waste, however, we were not able to measure these impacts on C. perobana populations. The new species has an EOO of 1,863 km² (< 20,000 km² in criteria B1), and an AOO of 44 km² (< 2,000 km² in criteria B2). Although, C. perobana does not meet any other condition of this criteria, the new species can be classified as Least Concern (LC), according to the IUCN criteria and categories (IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee, 2024).

Morphometric analysis. The principal component analysis (PCA) returned the axis of component 1 with 26.6% of variation, component 2 with 16.1%, and component 3 with 11.9% of variation, totaling 54.6% of variation. There is a large overlap between Morphotypes I and II and no tendency of discrimination between them (Fig. 10). Measurements with higher positive loadings for PC1 are supraorbital pores s6 distance and pelvic-fin length, for PC2 are nasal-barbel length and supraorbital pores s6 distance, and for PC3 are pelvic-anal distance and anal-fin length (Tab. 2).

FIGURE 10| Scatter plot of individual scores of samples of Cambeva perobana morphotypes from the Piquiri and Ivaí river basins, in the Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

TABLE 2 | Loading results of measurements used in the PCA for Cambeva perobana.

Morphometric data	PC 1	PC 2	PC 3
Preanal lenght	0.029	-0.101	-0.02625
Prepelvic lenght	0.031	-0.073	-0.1071
Pelvic-anal distance	-0.251	-0.048	0.60038
Caudal-penduncle length	0.088	0.001	-0.16695
Scapular girdle width	0.069	0.026	0.042599
Pectoral-fin length	-0.061	-0.170	-0.0314
Pelvic-fin length	0.131	-0.095	-0.03154
Anal-fin length	0.034	-0.106	-0.06591
Head lenght	0.030	-0.052	-0.10419
Predorsal length	0.029	-0.074	-0.09848
Dorsal-fin lenght	0.021	0.062	0.08714
Body depth	-0.021	0.028	-0.07419
Dorsal-fin base length	0.083	0.023	0.17143
Anal-fin base length	0.150	-0.394	0.45076
Caudal-peduncle depth	0.028	0.022	-0.09493
Head width	0.015	0.026	-0.09189
Nasal-barbel length	-0.340	0.632	-0.14557
Maxillary-barbel length	-0.200	0.223	0.16384
Rictal-barbel length	-0.348	0.191	0.24651
Snout length	0.044	-0.103	-0.31877
Interorbital	-0.084	-0.080	-0.13356
Mouth width	-0.023	-0.126	-0.18196
Eye diameter	-0.004	-0.015	-0.01823
Supraorbital pores s6 distance	0.763	0.494	0.21447

Discussion​

---

The color pattern of Cambeva species has been used to diagnose several species and has been shown to be diagnostic for species as C. castroi, C. diabola, C. horacioi, C. melanoptera, and C. piraquara (see de Pinna, 1992b; Bockmann et al., 2004; Reis et al., 2020b, 2023; Costa et al., 2022). Although color pattern variation initially suggests a greater number of species in Cambeva, it is important to be cautious when using it as a diagnostic to not overestimate species number (Silva et al., 2010; Nascimento et al., 2017; Donin et al., 2022). The same situation applies to C. perobana, as it exhibitsa high intraspecific variation in the body color pattern and is therefore divided into Morphotype I and Morphotype II (see remarks and coloration in alcohol for more information and description of the morphotypes). On the other hand, the similarity in the color pattern between C. perobana Morphotype II and C. davisi (see type-series in Nascimento et al., 2017) could hide the diversity of the genus, however the use of osteological data allows separation between species that are similar in external morphology.

Variation in color pattern of C. perobana does not seem to be due to ontogeny, since juvenile and adult specimens have both morphotypes (see Tab. 1 for SL range in both morphotypes). According to our results in both meristic, morphometric (PCA), molecular (species delimitation), and osteology, the morphotypes can be associated with a unique species, described here. Therefore, our results demonstrate how integrating the tools for delimiting Cambeva species helps to avoid overestimating the number of species in the group (Silva et al., 2010; Ferrer, Malabarba, 2013; Nascimento et al., 2017; Reis et al., 2020b; Donin et al., 2022).

Cambeva perobana specimens formed a monophyletic group in both ML and Bayesian trees and had C. davisi (from rio Iguaçu basin) as the genetically closer species with 1.3% of mean genetic divergence between the species. These findings are consistent with Pereira et al. (2013) observations of interspecific values <2% for Trichomycterinae. Despite the low genetic distance, the majority of species delimitation methods indicated that C. perobana is a distinct and unique species, including the two morphotypes found in this study. Although the GMYC method combined the new species with C. davisi, C. diabola, and C. barbosae, its results were also more conservative with other species already defined based on morphology and molecular methods (e.g., C. stawiarski, C. cauim, C. chrysornata, C. cubataonis, and C. guaratuba). The disparity between delimitation methods with different approaches is expected in species with high speciation rates, and the consensus should be accepted as the more parsimonious result (Dellicour, Flot, 2018).

The distribution of Cambeva perobana shows a similar pattern to other species occurring in both Piquiri and Ivaí basins, such as Apareiodon vladii Pavanelli, 2006, Planaltina kaingang Deprá, da Graça, Pavanelli, Avelino & Oliveira, 2018 (Reis et al., 2020a), which can be explained by the exchange of the ichthyofauna through headwater capture in such basins (Morais-Silva et al., 2018). The discovery of the new species in the rio Ivaí basin, located near the headwaters of rio Piquiri (ca. 5 km), further supports this hypothesis.

In addition to Cambeva perobana, six congeneric species, C. diabola, C. pascuali, C. horacioi, C. iheringi, C. guareiensis and C. paolence were described from the upper rio Paraná basin (Fricke et al., 2023), and only C. horacioi is sympatric with C. perobana (see Eigenmann, 1917; Bockmann et al., 2004; Ochoa et al., 2017; Katz, Costa, 2020; Reis et al., 2020b). Some studies suggest that part of the biodiversity found in the Atlantic Forest biome is present in the upper rio Paraná basin (Agostinho et al., 2007; Delariva, Silva, 2013; Delariva et al., 2014), which is one of the most extensively studied areas compared to other Brazilian basins, although the number of species that have not been formally described still account for approximately 10% (Agostinho et al., 2007; Reis et al., 2020a). Therefore, knowing and describing these fishes species from the region is an important factor for conservation of the upper rio Paraná basin, which is situated in one of the largest industrial and urban regions in South America and has been suffering from anthropogenic impacts (Agostinho et al., 2008). Considering the description of C. perobana, which is the first species of the genus in the rio Piquiri and the second in the rio Ivaí, it is essential to emphasize the importance of these rivers, which in their headwater regions probably still harbor species to be described (see possible new species in Delariva et al., 2013; Frota et al., 2016; Cavalli et al., 2018; Reis et al., 2020a).

Comparative material examined. All from Brazil.Cambeva cauim: rio Iguaçu basin: MPEG 39109, 4 paratypes, 29.2–82.3 mm SL. NUP 2416, 19, 20.0–97.4 mm SL. NUP 22756, holotype, 89.6 mm SL. Cambeva crassicaudata: rio Iguaçu basin: NUP 3783, 3, 78.6–134.5 mm SL. Cambeva davisi:rio Iguaçu basin: NUP 15994, 47, 19.6–80.1 mm SL. NUP 15914, 67.2–78.2 mm SL. Rio Ribeira de Iguape basin: NUP 17409, 8 (2 c&s), 31.7–63.1 mm SL. Cambeva paolence: rio Tietê basin: LBP 7684, 1, 54.1 mm SL. Cambeva papillifera:rio Iguaçu basin: NUP 1615, 1 paratype, 94.4 mm SL. Cambeva plumbea:rio Iguaçu basin: NUP 1614, 3 paratypes, 72.5–78.5 mm SL. Cambeva taroba:rio Iguaçu basin: NUP 1616, 3 paratypes, 47.4–53.8 mm SL.

Acknowledgments​

---

To Matheus Z. Rollof, Larissa C. Menegassi, and Thiago H. Pedroso for their assistance with the fieldwork, maps, and photographs, respectively.
The research was financed in part by the Fundação Araucária (Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico do Paraná) process number: 10558/2016 to WJG. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais (PEA) and Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquicultura (Nupélia) for the logistic support. We thank Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for productivity scholarships granted to WJG (processes 305200/2018–6 and 307089/2021–5). ICM, RBR, and BHMS were supported by scholarships from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) processes 88887.894166/2023–00, 88887.629034/2021–00 and 88887.629037/2021–00, respectively.

References​

---

Agostinho AA, Pelicice FM, Gomes LC. Dams and the fish fauna of the Neotropical region: impacts and management related to diversity and fisheries. Braz J Biol. 2008; 68:1119–32. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1519-69842008000500019

Agostinho AA, Pelicice FM, Petry AC, Gomes LC, Júlio Jr. HF. Fish diversity in the upper Paraná River basin: habitats, fisheries, management and conservation. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 2007; 10(2):174–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/14634980701341719

Baskin JN. Structure and relationships of the Trichomycteridae. [PhD Thesis]. New York: City University of New York; 1973.

Bockmann FA, Casatti L, de Pinna MCC. A new species of trichomycterid catfish from the Rio Paranapanema basin, southeastern Brazil (Teleostei: Siluriformes), with comments on the phylogeny of the family. Ichthyol Explor Freshw. 2004; 15(3):225–42.

Cavalli D, Frota F, Lira AD, Guabiani EA, Margarido VP, Graça WJ. Update on the ichthyofauna of the Piquiri River basin, Paraná, Brazil: a conservation priority area. Biota Neotrop. 2018; 18(2):e20170350. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2017-0350

Chuctaya J, Bührnheim CM, Malabarba LR. Two new species of Odontostilbe historically hidden under O. microcephala (Characiformes: Cheirodontinae). Neotrop Ichthyol. 2018; 16(1):e170047. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20170047

Costa WJEM. Description de huit nouvelles espèces du genre Trichomycterus (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae), du Brésil oriental. Rev Fr Aquariol. 1992; 18(4):101–10.

Costa WJEM, Abilhoa V, Dalcin RH, Katz AM. A new catfish species of the genus Cambeva (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) from the Rio Iguaçu drainage, southern Brazil, with a remarkable unique colour pattern. J Fish Biol. 2022; 101(1):69–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.15071

Costa WJEM, Feltrin CRM, Mattos JLO, Dalcin RH, Abilhoa V, Katz AM. Morpho-molecular discordance? Re-approaching systematics of Cambeva (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) from the Guaratuba-Babitonga-Itapocu area, Southern Brazil. Fishes. 2023; 8(2):63. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes8020063

Datovo A, Bockmann FA. Dorsolateral head muscles of the catfish families Nematogenyidae and Trichomycteridae (Siluriformes: Loricarioidei): comparative anatomy and phylogenetic analysis. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2010; 8(2):193–246. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252010000200001

Delariva RL, Silva JC. Fish fauna of headwater streams of Perobas Biological Reserve, a conservation unit in the Atlantic Forest of the Northwestern Paraná State, Brazil. Check List. 2013; 9(3):549–54. https://doi.org/10.15560/9.3.549

Delariva RL, Silva JC. Peixes. Reserva biológica das Perobas: uma ilha de biodiversidade no Noroeste do Paraná. Curitiba: Departamento de transportes da Universidade federal do Paraná; 2014.

Dellicour S, Flot J-F. The hitchhiker’s guide to single-locus species delimitation. Mol Ecol Resour. 2018; 18(6):1234–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.12908

Donin LM, Ferrer J, Carvalho F. Uncertainties and risks in delimiting species of Cambeva (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) with single-locus methods and geographically restricted data. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2022; 20(3):e220019. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-2022-0019

Drummond AJ, Suchard MA, Xie D, Rambaut A. Bayesian phylogenetics with BEAUti and the BEAST 1.7. Mol Biol Evol. 2012; 29(8):1969–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mss075

Fernández L, Arrovava J, Schaefer AS. Emerging patterns in phylogenetic studies of trichomycterid catfishes (Teleostei, Siluriformes) and the contribution of Andean diversity. Zoo Scr. 2021; 50(3):318–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12475

Fernández L, Schaefer SA. Relationship among the Neotropical candirus (Trichomycteridae, Siluriformes) and the evolution of parasitism based on analysis of mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2009; 52(2):416–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2009.02.016

Ferrer J, Malabarba LR. A new Trichomycterus lacking pelvic fins and pelvic girdle with a very restricted range in Southern Brazil (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae). Zootaxa. 2011; 2912(1):59–67. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.2912.1.5

Ferrer J, Malabarba LR. Taxonomic review of the genus Trichomycterus Valenciennes (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) from the laguna dos Patos system, Southern Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2013; 11(2):217–46. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252013000200001

Fricke R, Eschmeyer WN, Van der Laan R. Eschmeyer’s catalog of fishes: genera, species, references [Internet]. San Francisco: California Academy of Science; 2019. Available from: http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp

Frota A, Deprá GC, Petenucci LM, Graça WJ. Inventory of the fish fauna from Ivaí River basin, Paraná State, Brazil. Biota Neotrop. 2016; 16(3):e20150151. https://doi.org/10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2015-0151

Fujisawa T, Barraclough TG. Delimiting species using single-locus data and the generalized mixed yule coalescent approach: a revised method and evaluation on simulated data sets. Syst Biol. 2013; 62(5):707–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syt033

Guindon S, Dufayard J-F, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 2010; 59(3):307–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syq010

Hall TA. BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser. 1999; 41:95–98.

Hammer O, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron. 2001; 4(1):1–09. Available from: https://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm

Henschel E, Mattos JLO, Katz AM, Costa WJEM. Position of enigmatic miniature trichomycterid catfishes inferred from molecular data (Siluriformes). Zool Scr. 2017; 47(1):44–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12260

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Standards and petitions committee. Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List categories and criteria. Version 16 [Internet]. Gland; 2024. Available from: https://nc.iucnredlist.org/redlist/content/attachment_files/RedListGuidelines.pdf

Ivanova NV, Zemlak TS, Hanner RH, Hebert PDN. Universal primer cocktails for fish DNA barcoding. Mol Ecol Notes. 2007; 7(4):544–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01748.x

Katz AM, Barbosa MA, Mattos JLO, Costa WJEM. Multigene analysis of the catfish genus Trichomycterus and description of a new South American trichomycterine genus (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae). Zoosyst Evol. 2018; 94(2):557–66. https://doi.org/10.3897/zse.94.29872

Kumar S, Stecher G, Tamura K. MEGA7: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 7.0 for bigger datasets. Mol Biol Evol. 2016; 33(7):1870–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msw054

Langeani F, Castro RMC, Oyakawa OT, Shibatta OA, Pavanelli CS, Casatti L. Diversidade da ictiofauna do alto rio Paraná: composição atual e perspectivas futuras. Biota Neotrop. 2007; 7(3):181–97. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032007000300020

Letunic I, Bork P. Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021; 49:293–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab301

Morais-Silva JP, Oliveira AV, Fabrin TMC, Diamante NA, Prioli SMAP, Frota A et al. Geomorphology influencing the diversification of fish in small-order rivers of neighboring basins. Zebrafish. 2018; 15(4):zeb.2017.1551. https://doi.org/10.1089/zeb.2017.1551

Nascimento RHC, Frantine-Silva W, Souza-Shibatta L, Sofia SH, Ferrer J, Shibatta OA. Intrapopulational variation in color pattern of Trichomycterus davisi (Haseman, 1911) (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) corroborated by morphometrics and molecular analysis. Zootaxa. 2017; 4290(3):503–18. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4290.3.5

Ochoa LE, Datovo A, DoNascimiento C, Roxo FF, Sabaj MH, Chang J et al. Phylogenomic analysis of trichomycterid catfishes (Teleostei: Siluriformes) inferred from ultraconserved elements. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(2697):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59519-w

Ochoa LE, Roxo FF, DoNascimiento C, Sabaj MH, Datovo A, Alfaro M et al. Multilocus analysis of the catfish family Trichomycteridae (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Siluriformes) supporting a monophyletic Trichomycterinae. Mol Phylogen Evol. 2017; 115:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2017.07.007

Pereira LHG, Hanner R, Foresti F, Oliveira C. Can DNA barcoding accurately discriminate megadiverse Neotropical freshwater fish fauna? BMC Genet. 2013; 14(20):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-14-20

de Pinna MCC. A new subfamily of Trichomycteridae (Teleostei, Siluriformes), lower loricarioid relationships and a discussion on the impact of additional taxa for phylogenetic analysis. Zool J Linn Soc. 1992a; 106(3):175–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1992.tb01247.x

de Pinna MCC. Trichomycterus castroi, a new species of trichomycterid catfish from the Rio Iguaçu of Southeastern Brazil (Teleostei: Siluriformes). Ichthyol Explor Freshw. 1992b; 3(1):89–95.

de Pinna MCC. Phylogenetic relationships of Neotropical Siluriformes (Teleostei: Ostariophysi): historical overview and synthesis of hypotheses. In: Malabarba LR, Reis RE, Vari RP, Lucena ZMS, Lucena CAS, editors. Phylogeny and classification of Neotropical fishes. Porto Alegre: Edipucrs; 1998. p.279–330.

de Pinna MCC. The dawn of phylogenetic research on Neotropical fishes: a commentary and introduction to Baskin (1973), with an overview of past progress on trichomycterid phylogenetics. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2016; 14(2):e150127. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-20150127

de Pinna MCC, Dagosta FCP. A taxonomic review of the vampire catfish genus Paracanthopoma Giltay, 1935 (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae), with descriptions of nine new species and a revised diagnosis of the genus. Pap Avulsos Zool. 2022; 62:e202262072. https://doi.org/10.11606/1807-0205/2022.62.072

de Pinna M, Reis V, Britski H. A new species of Trichogenes (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae), with a discussion on the homologies of the anterior orbital bones in trichomycterids and other loricarioids. Am Mus Novit. 2020; 2020(3951):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1206/3951.1

de Pinna MCC, Wosiacki WB. Family Trichomycteridae (pencil or parasitic catfishes). In: Reis RE, Kullander SO, Ferraris Jr. CJ, editors. Check list of the freshwater fishes of South and Central America. Porto Alegre: Edipucrs; 2003. p.270–90.

Puillandre N, Brouillet S, Achaz G. ASAP: assemble species by automatic partitioning. Mol Ecol Resour. 2021; 21(2):609–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1755-0998.13281

R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2023. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/

Rambaut A. FigTree ver 1.4.4. Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh; 2018. Available from: https://github.com/rambaut/figtree

Rambaut A, Drummond AJ, Xie D, Baele G, Suchard MA. Posterior summarization in bayesian phylogenetics using tracer 1.7. Syst Biol. 2018; 67(5):901–04. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syy032

Reis RB, Frota A, Deprá GC, Ota RR, Graça WJ. Freshwater fishes from Paraná State, Brazil: an annotated list, with comments on biogeographic patterns, threats, and future perspectives. Zootaxa. 2020a; 4868(4):451–94. https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.4868.4.1

Reis RB, Frota A, Fabrin TMC, Graça WJ. A new species of Cambeva (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae) from the Rio Ivaí basin, Upper Rio Paraná basin, Paraná State, Brazil. J Fish Biol. 2020b; 96(2):350–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14204

Reis RB, Wosiacki WB, Ferrer J, Donin LM, Graça WJ. A new species of Cambeva (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) from an area of high anthropogenic impacts in the headwaters of Rio Iguaçu, Southern Brazil. Can J Zool. 2023; 101(6):423–33. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjz-2022-0150

Rosenthal A, Coutelle O, Craxton M. Large-scale production of DNA sequencing templates by microtitre format PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993; 21(1):173–74.

Sabaj MH. Codes for natural history collections in ichthyology and herpetology. Copeia. 2020; 108(3):593–669. https://doi.org/10.1643/ASIHCODONS2020

Silva CCF, Matta SLSF, Hilsdorf AWS, Langeani F, Marceniuk AP. Color pattern variation in Trichomycterus iheringi (Eigenmann, 1917) (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) from rio Itatinga and rio Claro, São Paulo, Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2010; 8(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-62252010000100007

Taylor WR, Van Dyke G. Revised procedures for staining and clearing small fishes and other vertebrates for bone and cartilage study. Cybium. 1985; 9(2):107–19.

Tchernavin VV. A revision of some Trichomycterinæ based on material preserved in the British Museum (Natural History). Proc Zool Soc London. 1944; 114(1–2):234–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1944.tb00219.x

Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Research. 1994; 22(22):4673–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/22.22.4673

Trifinopoulos J, Nguyen L-T, von Haeseler A, Minh BQ. W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44(1):232–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw256

Ward RD, Zemlak TS, Innes BH, Last PR, Hebert PDN. DNA barcoding Australia’s fish species. Philos Trans R Soc B. 2005; 360(1462):1847–57. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1716

Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4

Wosiacki WB, de Pinna M. A new species of Neotropical catfish genus Trichomycterus (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) representing a new body shape for the family. Copeia. 2008(2):273–78. https://doi.org/10.1643/CI-06-237

Zhang J, Kapli P, Pavlidis P, Stamatakis A. A general species delimitation method with applications to phylogenetic placements. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(22):2869–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btt499

Authors

---

Isadora Carolina Martins^1,2 , Renan Borges dos Reis^1,2, Bruno Henrique Mioto Stabile² and Weferson Júnio da Graça^1,2,3,4

^[1]    Coleção Ictiológica, Nupélia, Departamento de Biologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Av. Colombo, 5790, 87020-900 Maringá, PR, Brazil. (ICM) icmartins@outlook.com.br (corresponding author), (RBR) reis.renanb@gmail.com, (WJG) weferson@nupelia.uem.br.

^[2]    Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia de Ambientes Aquáticos Continentais, Departamento de Biologia, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Av. Colombo, 5790, 87020-900 Maringá, PR, Brazil. (BHMS) bhmstabile@gmail.com.

^[3]    Núcleo de Pesquisas em Limnologia, Ictiologia e Aquiacultura (Nupélia), Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Av. Colombo, 5790, 87020-900 Maringá, PR, Brazil.

^[4]    Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia Comparada, Centro de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Estadual de Maringá. Av. Colombo, 5790, 87020-900 Maringá, PR, Brazil.

Authors’ Contribution

---

Isadora Carolina Martins: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing.

Renan Borges dos Reis: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing.

Bruno Henrique Mioto Stabile: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing.

Weferson Júnio da Graça: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing-original draft, Writing-review and editing.

Ethical Statement​

---

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

---

The author declares no competing interests.

How to cite this article

---

Martins IC, Reis RB, Stabile BHM, Graça WJ. Iterative taxonomy reveals a new species of Cambeva (Siluriformes: Trichomycteridae) with intraspecific variation from the rio Piquiri and Ivaí basin, upper rio Paraná basin, Brazil. Neotrop Ichthyol. 2024; 22(3):e230140. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0224-2023-0140

Copyright​

---

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Distributed under

Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0

© 2024 The Authors.

Diversity and Distributions Published by SBI

Accepted June 21, 2024 by Carlos DoNascimiento

Submitted May 16, 2023

Epub August 26, 2024